Central Information Commission
Gulab Khairwar vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 13 December, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NHAIN/A/2021/121980
Gulab Khairwar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Highways Authority of
India, PIU-Katni, RTI Cell,
Sai Aata Chakki, Near Somnath
Mandir, Dubey Colony, Katni,
Madhya Pradesh-483501 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12/12/2022
Date of Decision : 12/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on :09/12/2020
CPIO replied on :Not on record
First appeal filed on :18/01/2021
First Appellate Authority :Not on record
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated :06/05/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.12.2020 seeking the following information:1
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.01.2021. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Not present.
The Commission remarked at the outset that as per the Postal tracking status, the hearing notice had already been delivered to the CPIO on 08.12.2022; however, he did not turn at NIC venue for the hearing. Therefore, due efforts were made by the Registry attached with the bench to provide a fair chance to him for representation of the case by providing him an opportunity for audio-conference. Thus, Sumesh Bansal, PD/PIU & CPIO attended the call hearing, but he was unprepared with the facts of the case and sought deferment of the matter to another date of hearing since as per his version, the notice of hearing was not received in their office. In this regard, considering the efflux of time, Commission does not find it feasible to adjourn the matter any further and decide the case on merits based on the strength of material available on record.2
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that no reply along with relevant desired information has not been provided to him till date.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset takes grave exception to the fact that there is neither any record of any reply provided by the Respondent CPIO nor did the CPIO either submitted any written submission before the hearing nor did he appear during the hearing proceedings with proper facts and figures. Further, the reason accorded by the CPIO regarding non-receipt of hearing notice was unacceptable in view of the postal tracking record available with the Commission which in itself reflects that it was duly received in their office on 08.12.2022. The said casual conduct of the CPIO amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and is viewed adversely by the Commission.
Having observed as above, the then CPIO (at the time of receipt of hearing notice) and also the present CPIO are hereby directed to send their written submissions to show cause as to why no action should be taken against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for violating the provisions of RTI Act by not giving reply to the Appellant. The said written submission of the CPIO along with supporting documents, if any, shall reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which ex-parte action will be taken against the CPIO.
The present CPIO should serve a copy of this order to the then CPIO at his/her current corresponding address for timely compliance of the above mentioned direction.
Further, considering the prayer of the Appellant, the present CPIO is hereby directed to provide a point wise reply along with relevant available information as per the provisions of RTI Act, free of cost to the Appellant. The said direction should be complied by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 3 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4